mj, that’s part of the problem. FoxNoise and the GOP can’t believe that someone would not be in permanent campaign mode (unlike all their people), even as there’s still an amazing 338 days until Iowa holds its precinct caucuses. And, according to a site listing the primary/caucus schedule for 2016, by this date next year, only 8 will have been held (caucuses: Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, and Nevada; primaries: New Hampshire, New York, Utah and South Carolina)—but most of these are considered “tentative” dates at present so even that Iowa date (1/18/16) may be moved forward.

But, for the GOPers, their candidates—especially the ones who haven’t officially declared—have already been campaigning for most of the past year (the ones that are truly egregious made their presidential ambitions pretty evident while they were running for other offices in 2014).

Of course, if Hillary had been “campaigning” as frequently as the GOP clown car passengers, you can be sure FoxNoise and the RNC would be complaining about that (“she’s the only Democrat in the field right now, so why is she working so hard now?”).

I made a similar comment to Erich’s elsewhere (as in another site/story) on the Williams situation.

I think there that I pointed out how the two situations prove that FoxNoise is NOT a legitimate news network. Propagandists rarely get suspended, much less fired, for being caught lying while legitimate news networks will fire their journalists who get caught lying.

Let’s compare the stories being told in “Rosewater” and “American Sniper.” In one, you’ve got the story of a man who was unjustly imprisoned by a theocratic dictatorial regime for the crime of covering elections and reporting the election results were rigged and he manages to survive months of physical and psychological torture. In the other, you’ve got a man whose job was to murder people and willingly chose to be separated from his family to do that job.

I saw “Rosewater.” It was inspirational (I’m also a fan of Gael Garcia-Bernal and have been since “Y Tu Mama Tambien”). I have no intention of seeing “American Murderer Sniper.” If I want to watch military films, I prefer a bit of fiction (“Fury” was incredible).

Hmm. Let’s reverse some things here:

The President is Dubya.
The Senator challenging the President’s foreign policy is a Democrat.
FoxNoise’s position would be “You’re a traitor to this country.”

Aria, I don’t know about that. Considering all the ammunition that FoxNoise provides, I’m sure Stewart can find even more things to skewer the Foxxies—and in a far more withering (and ROTFL-inducing) manner. The only problem is that Stewart’s limited to having to distill FoxNoise’s 24-hour cycle of news outrage into a mere 30 minutes.

Hell, by the time the “Daily Show” starts taping, the writers may be forced to scramble at the last minute if something really outrageous comes up. (Per Wikipedia, the show tapes around 6 pm, with a rehearsal about 2 hours earlier to leave time for rewrites.) And there’s no telling how much material can’t be dealt with during the hours between the end of taping and the evening’s initial broadcast, having to be left for the next day (that’s assuming that, amazingly, FoxNoise doesn’t make even more outrageous comments or dig themselves even deeper before the next “Daily Show” cycle begins).

It’s kind of funny that FoxNoise is actually backing these guys, given that the HGTV network is based in Knoxville, Tennessee—a state which happens to be one of those “right to work” states—and FoxNoise is usually supportive of “right to work” laws, which basically allow ANY employee to be fired FOR ANY REASON that’s not actively protected by Federal labor laws. Now, freedom of religion is one of those protected reasons but these guys did NOT lose their jobs BECAUSE of their religion.

Additionally, these guys were hired as “at-will” employees. They weren’t guaranteed indefinite employment by HGTV (presumably, if their ratings declined over a period of time, that would’ve caused them to “be fired” as well). And I’d be willing to bet that a part of the contract they signed, they were supposed to refrain from ANY type of controversial commentary or activities which could negatively affect the show whether being caught snorting coke and drinking alcohol with a bevy of underage girls or making statements deemed disparaging of the show’s target audience. Do these guys think they’d have been left alone if they’d made disparaging comments about “blue-haired ladies” or “single women who live with a dozen cats?” Something tells me, not so much. They’d have probably been dropped by the network in a heartbeat (if a substantial number of the blue-haired ladies and single women with a dozen cats wrote in complaining about the comments).

(This comment has been deleted by moderator. We cannot allow any talk of violence or harm even when you are just kidding.)

Scottie Nell Hughes: Drag queen name or just plain silly name?

Definitely drag-queen worthy but no queen worth her salt would consider wearing that outfit, except in a hipsterish fashion. (Maybe for the “Snatch Game” segment of “RuPaul’s Drag Race.”)

Then again, I’d be willing to bet that Scottie Nell’s hatred is because transwomen look better than her without any hormone treatment or makeup.

“Jones Bridget”: I was merely responding to YOUR “personal attack” against Priscilla. When the FoxNoise hosts (and their little trolls—like you) get up and start talking about how wonderful marriage is and how Obama should promote it, while they themselves are presumably SINGLE, that’s just a matter of hypocrisy—much like your “demand” that Priscilla not engage in any “personal attacks” while you yourself engaged in a very personal attack.

And I’m guessing that I touched on some flaw in your character, given the way you responded. I mean, if there’s nothing wrong in your life, you would’ve responded to the content of the comment, instead of—once again—engaging in a personal attack. (Let me guess—you’re a self-hating gay conservative with a fondness for Renee Zellweger movies or Helen Fielding novels. Whoops! Did I hit too close to home?)

As to “defensive with regards to marriage,” I don’t really care. What I DO care about are hypocrites. I mean, when the President and First Lady take time for “date nights” (reinforcing the fact they’re a happily married couple—and a pretty damned good way to “promote marriage”) the right-wing, led by FoxNoise, freaks out, suggesting that the President isn’t doing his job. And, again, when seemingly SINGLE hosts and pundits get on their high horses about promoting (heterosexual) marriage, that’s being “defensive” over hypocrisy—if these people were married, why no mention in their personal biographies? Any couple should be allowed to engage in a civil marriage ceremony—and if they belong to a denomination that doesn’t have a problem with marriage equality, they should be able to hold a religious ceremony. If I were in a relationship at the moment, I’d be considering marriage—but NOT because the FoxNoise hypocrites think the President should be endorsing it.

As to Ben’s assertion that the “Democrats will cancel the 2016 elections,” maybe he’s forgotten that the same accusation/assertion was made in 2012. And it seems kind of unlikely that would happen now, given the GOP’s majorities in both the House and Senate (although, I’m sure the GOPers in Congress would be more than happy to go along with cancelling the 2016 elections since they would ensure they kept their Congressional majorities without having to do any silly campaigning).

Given his current political outspokenness, I’m surprised that anyone would’ve ever let themselves be operated on by this man. He’s all sorts of batsh#t crazy (he gets to be the Black male version of Michele Bachmann—maybe even outdoing her since he actually has a medical degree).

Given the choice between some primitive witch doctor in the Amazon jungle or the heart of the Congo and Ben Carson performing delicate neurosurgery on me, I think I’ll go with the witch doctor.

Andrew, you don’t know enough about GOOD science to be arguing what constitutes “bad” science. The planet (living or dead) does NOT “inhale or exhale” anything—much less a climate. The fact that you would make such an idiotic comment shows that you don’t know jack squat about climate science.

You also don’t seem to know anything about evolution. Here’s a hint, though: IF evolution is possible on the micro scale (and many “creationists” actually accept this since viruses and bacteria PROVE that microevolution is not merely possible but fact), then it’s equally possible on the macro scale, meaning that apes and humans share a similar ancestor. (Additionally, consider how DNA evidence easily disproves BOTH creation stories in Genesis. The first story doesn’t explain how man is actually created, aside from “Let us create man in all own image . . . male and female, created He them both” but the second story uses the old created from clay/dirt. Well, soil does NOT contain DNA in and of itself. Any DNA found in the soil came from dead animals. But, per this account, man was created BEFORE the animals so there couldn’t be any DNA in the soil from which Adam was created. And yet……..humans share a significant amount of DNA with a vast majority of other animal species and even a large number of plant species. But DNA, being a fairly fragile thing, is subject to any number of mutations—which is why evolution works as a theory.)

And the funniest thing about Christie is that “Ebola nurse.” If only he hadn’t gone so publicly off-the-rails with demands that she be forcibly quarantined, he could’ve positioned himself as the “rational” voice for parental vaccination choice. (He would still be wrong on the matter, but that’s another thing altogether.)

Now, if all these GOPers who’ve come out as “pro-choice” on the vaccination front would be willing to give women a choice on abortion instead of making their choice more difficult……..

If anything, McKendrick’s proving what a real businessman (or businessperson, if you prefer) does—sells what the customer wants without letting his own beliefs get in the way.

You know—a complete 180 from the “Christians” who can’t understand their doing a same-sex marriage photo shoot or a same-sex wedding cake or planning a same-sex wedding means they “condone” the activity yet feel their business entitles them to discriminate against potential customers, based on “personal beliefs.”

And while I don’t watch the FoxNoisePropaganda Channel, I’d be willing to bet that the network airs commercials for movies which may “offend” some of their viewers, because, you know, money doesn’t discriminate.

Please. Men were depicted as “bumblers” and “fools” long before “Frozen” was ever conceived.

Anyone recall Al Bundy from “Married with Children?” What about Frank Burns from “MASH?” Or Gilligan from “Gilligan’s Island?” Or Jethro Bodine from “The Beverly Hillbillies?” Or Tim Taylor from “Home Improvement?” Or Barney Fife from “The Andy Griffith Show?” Or Herman Munster from “The Munsters?” Or Joey Tribbiani from “Friends?”

The thing is that men being depicted as such is fine since men have been the ones wielding most of the power and using them for humor is acceptable. When you have a show (or movie) featuring a “bumbling” or “foolish” woman (or minority), you run the risk of being, well, mean-spirited. That’s a basic rule of comedy but also works well with drama. You never make fun of the powerless in a comedy and you never boo the powerless in a drama. (Even if your show or film is an all-female cast or all-minority cast, you make sure that at least one of the cast is shown to be sensible since the powers that be tend to be kind of NOT all-female or all-minority. Look at the show “Good Times,” for instance. J J was typically the fool, the buffoon which was fine, since the rest of the cast provided the “sensible” balance—even J J’s mean-spirited barbs directed at Thelma were generally minimized because Thelma gave back as good as she got.)

Doocy is just being a douche.

Someone might want to remind Seannie-poop that the Saudis are pretty deeply involved with Rupert’s little empire. That is, before Seannie-poop finds himself looking for a new employer (or is forced to go the completely solo route).

So this little talentless hack is saying she was attempting “humor” about sexual assault, suggesting that “bad girls” are the reason, but now she’s claiming that she was a “victim” of sexual assault?

Not buying it.

Nor do I buy her “apology” that the universities’ focus on alcohol isn’t as important as the objectification of women. Well, there’s a real problem in the fact that the universities CAN control alcohol far more easily than they can “objectification of women.” Unless the universities are going to enforce Taliban-style dress codes on the female students and block all outside television and publications and internet, the “objectification of women” isn’t going to be something the universities can do anything about. (And I haven’t really heard any guys “defending” their actions by blaming it on the booze—compared to the idiot’s “very serious issue of men blaming alcohol for their vile behavior” comment. Most of the time, what I’ve heard has been the right-wing basically saying “girl shouldn’t have drunk so much at the party”—which blames the girl for whatever happened to her.)

Also, it’s worth pointing out that, in the wake of all the sexual assault stories that have come out over the past few years, when women’s groups have suggested that the men responsible for the deeds be held accountable for their actions, they’ve been attacked—and mostly from the talking heads at FoxNoise and other right-wing groups. Women are still being told that THEY are the ones who are supposed to be “careful” when dealing with fratboys. Girls, don’t drink to excess when near guys. Girls, don’t wear skimpy clothing when near guys. Girls, don’t flirt with the guys around you. Girls, don’t be sexually active if you’re not married. ALL the rules are directed at the girls/young women—NOT at the men. The right-wing rules don’t say “Guys, treat all women with respect” or “Just because that girl’s flirting with you and is three sheets to the wind, that’s not reason for you to have sex with her if she’s not really interested.” Nope. It’s ALL on the girls. And the girls who don’t follow those rules to the letter, well, they’re sluts who deserve whatever they get.

Does Dash acknowledge any of this? Of course not.

Furthermore, since Dash made her outlandish comment on TV, the apology should be on TV—not her fucking Facebook account. How many of the people who heard her make the outlandish, even outrageous, comment follow her on Facebook or would know about her “apology” on Facebook? I’m betting less than 1% of the folks who heard her on Outnumbered know she’s now “apologized.” (Much like the typical newspaper screw-up. Print the outlandish claim on Page 1, above the fold. Print the apology at the bottom of page 14 in a little box right next to the quarter-page ad for the 25% off sale on lawn care products at Uncle Sally’s Home Store.)